Transforming Non-Recyclable Plastics to Fuel Oil Using...

Transforming Non-Recyclable Plastics to Fuel Oil Using

Thermal Pyrolysis

Presented to:

Marco J. Castaldi

Sheldon M. Horowitz

William Houlihan

From:

Isamar Garrido Rodriguez

Luz Maria Valdiviezo

Tiffany Harden

Xing Huang

(Group H)

Chemical Engineering Department

Grove School of Engineering,

The City College of New York

May 9, 2018

Group H 05/09/18

1

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary……………………………………………………………….....................3

II. Introduction………………………………………………………………….............................4

A. Commercial Pyrolysis Techniques………………………………………………..........4

B. GRE’s Approach...…………………………………………………………..................5

III. Process Description…………………………………………………………………................6

IV. Major Equipment Specifications…………………………………...………………................9

V. Aspen Simulation……………………………………………….…………………………….10

A. Simulation Overview…………………………………...……………………….........10

B. Simulation Results………………………………………………..………………....13

VI. NRP to Oil Economic Analysis……………………………………………………….……..16

VII. Potential Application of Char ………………………………………………………………19

VIII. Conclusion………………………………………………………......……………….…….19

IX. References…………………………………………………………………………………....20

X. Appendix……………………………………………………….……………………………..22

A. Auxiliary Information…………………………………...…………………………....22

B. Equipment Specifications…………………………………………..……………..…24

C. Detailed Calculations………………………………………...……………………...28

i. Carbon Conversion …………………………………………………...............28

ii.Energy Efficiency……………………………………………………………..28

iii. Detailed Economics Calculation…………………………………...………..40

Group H 05/09/18

2

Tables and Figures

Table 1- Plastic to Oil Producers, Capacity, Pyrolysis Methods, Costs, and Products…….……..5

Table 2- Major Equipment Specifications…………………………………………………….......9

Table 3- Proximate Analysis (wt%) of NRP Feedstock……………………………..…………..11

Table 4- Ultimate Analysis (wt%) of NRP Feedstock……………………...……………………11

Table 5- Comparison of Aspen Simulation Results at 1000 oF vs GRE’s Reported Values.……15

Table 6- Hydrocarbon Distribution for Cyclones 1-8 on a Weight Percentage Basis…………...16

Table 7- Economic Analysis of a NRP to Fuel Process…………………………..……………...17

Figure 1- Overall NRP Pyrolysis Process Mass Balance…………………...……………………..7

Figure 2- Overall NRP Pyrolysis Process Energy Balance………………………………..……...7

Figure 3- NRP to Fuel Process Flow Diagram…………………………...……………………….8

Figure 4- Aspen Simulation of NRP to Fuel Pyrolysis Process…………………………..……..11

Figure 5- Product Distribution Out of the Reaction Zone as a Function of Temperature.………13

Figure 6- Process Carbon Conversion as a Function of Temperature…………..……………….13

Figure 7- Pyrolysis Energy Efficiency as a Function of Temperature……………….…………..14

Figure 8- Oil Composition Out of the Reaction Zone in Weight %..............................................14

Figure 9- Gas Composition Out of the Reaction Zone in Weight %.............................................14

Figure 10- Oil Composition of GRE’s Final Product……………................................................15

Figure 11- Gas Composition of GRE’s Final Product...................................................................15

Figure 12- Straight-Line Depreciation of Equipment Used in the Plastics to Oil Plant…….…...18

Figure 13- Cumulative Cash Flow Diagram for 30-years of NRP to Fuel Plant…………….…..18

Group H 05/09/18

3

I. Executive Summary

The goal of this project was to design and simulate a process that converts non-recyclable

plastics (NRP) from municipal solid waste (MSW) produced in New York to high value oils. The

NRP to fuel process was designed based on Golden Renewable Energy (GRE)’s Renewable Fuel

Production (RFP) unit in Yonkers, New York. This unit takes a feed stream of 8-10 tons per day

(TPD) of NRP from of all grades excluding No.3 (PVC) and converts it into No.2 home heating

oil. The plant produces approximately 4.8 barrels of oil (B.O.) per ton of NRP.

In GRE’s process, the plastic feedstock is pretreated before entering the RFP unit. The

pretreatment consists of removing unwanted materials (i.e., metals, paper, glass and PVC) and

shredding the plastic to 0.75”-1” flakes. In the RFP unit, the plastics are melted in an extruder

and then sent through two screw pyrolysis reactors in series, where they are converted to

pyrolysis gas (pygas) and char. Then, the pygas is converted to oil by condensation and

separation using a series of 8 cyclones. Light gases that do not condense from the pygas are

recycled back into the process for energy recovery. GRE’s process has a carbon conversion of

NRP to pygas of 95% and a pyrolysis energy efficiency of 80%, approximately.

This report provides a quantitative detailed design analysis of a NRP to fuel process for a

capacity of 10 TPD of NRP to produce about 4.8 B.O. per ton of NRP. Aspen Plus was used to

simulate this process using a feedstock composed of 60% Polypropylene (PP) and 40%

Polyethylene (PE) at 77oF and atmospheric pressure. The results from the Aspen sensitivity

analysis showed that it is possible to simulate a process that converts NRP to fuel. The

simulation resulted in a carbon conversion of 93%, an oil to gas selectivity of 3.2:1, a production

rate of 4.2 B.O. per ton of NRP, and an energy efficiency of 84% at 1000 oF.

Finally, an economic analysis was done on the NRP to fuel process. The fixed capital cost was

calculated by adding up the cost of the major equipment and installation costs. Operation and

maintenance (O&M) costs were determined by accounting for the cost to labor, rent, water,

electricity, and wastewater disposal along with monthly maintenance and insurance costs. The

results from the economic analysis showed a total capital cost of $2,232,959, a net profit per year

of $968,145, a ROI of 26.6% and a payback period of 2.9 years.

Group H 05/09/18

4

II. Introduction

Transforming non-recyclable plastics (NRP) to high value oils have gained momentum over the

past years due to the increasing rate of plastic waste production coupled with the environmental

impacts of municipal solid waste (MSW) landfilling. For instance, in the US, the amount of

plastic waste increased from 34.2 million tons in 2011 to 39.3 million tons in 2014.1 Also,

according to “Transforming the Non-Recycled Plastics of New York City to Synthetic Oil” about

26 million tons of CO2 are generated every year due to landfilling.2

One way to reduce plastic landfilling is by transforming NRP to oils using pyrolysis. In a

pyrolysis process, large chains of hydrocarbons are broken down to smaller chains of

hydrocarbons to produce high value oils. This reaction occurs at temperatures ranging typically

from 572 oF to 1112oF under an oxygen-free environment and atmospheric pressure.2,3 The

pyrolysis process results in the production of oil, non-condensable gases, and char which

composition depends on the characteristics of the feedstock.

A. Commercial Pyrolysis Techniques

The 3 main commercial technologies for NRP pyrolysis are thermal, thermal-catalytic and

microwave pyrolysis. Thermal pyrolysis requires temperatures between 572oF and 2192oF

depending on the feedstock composition. In addition, it may require long residence times

compared to catalytic processes.3 Thermal pyrolysis is ideal for plastics that thermally degrade at

relatively low temperatures like polystyrene (PS).

In thermal-catalytic pyrolysis, a catalyst is used to accelerate the depolymerization reactions and

to improve the fuel quality. It can be done at temperatures as low as 392oF. The addition of a

catalyst improves the quality of products and reduces the residence time. The main disadvantage

of thermal-catalytic pyrolysis is that catalysts are usually expensive, must be regenerated after

the pyrolysis reaction and suffer from deactivation due to coke deposition.2,3,4

Microwave pyrolysis breaks down NRP using microwave radiation. Since plastics have low

dielectric constant, they are required to be mixed with materials like graphite and carbon which

are microwave radiation absorbents. Cracking temperatures in microwave pyrolysis range from

932 oF to 1292oF. The major advantage of this technique is that it allows for an even heat transfer

in the pyrolysis reactor.2,4

Many researchers have noted that thermal-catalytic pyrolysis is more efficient compared to other

types of pyrolysis techniques.3,4 However, thermal pyrolysis is still more popular among

commercial scale NRP to oil plants. A 2015 review on plastic to fuel producers done by the

Ocean Recovery Alliance, shows that out of 14 plastics-to-oils producers only 5 use thermal-

catalytic pyrolysis. The popularity of thermal pyrolysis over catalytic pyrolysis could be due to

the capital expense associated with the use of a catalyst. Table 1 shows a list of producers that

use thermal and catalytic pyrolysis including GRE and this design.5

Group H 05/09/18

5

Table 1: Plastic to Oil Producers, Capacity, Pyrolysis Methods, Costs, and Products5

Producers Capacity Type of

Pyrolysis

Products Production

Rate

Fixed Capital

Cost

This Design

10 TPD

Thermal

No. 2 Home Heating Oil

177 gallons/ton

$1.6 Million

MK Aromatics

Limited

11 TPD Catalytic Light Sweet Synthetic

Crude

195 gallons/ton

$3.5 Million

Golden

Renewables

24 TPD

Thermal

Diesel Blendstock,

Gasoline Blendstock,

No. 2 Home Heating Oil

190 gallons/ton

$5-$6 Million

JBI 20-30

TPD

Catalytic Naphtha,

Diesel Blendstock,

Fuel Oil No. 6

190 gallons/ton

$5-$8 Million

Nexus Fuels 50 TPD Thermal Light Sweet Synthetic

Crude and Distillate fuel

220-280 gallons/ton

$9-$12 Million

Vadxx 60 TPD Thermal Light End/Naphtha

Middle Distillate

Fuel Oil No. 2

210 gallons/ton $17-$18 Million

B. GRE’s Approach

GRE, located in Yonkers, New York takes plastic waste from Recommunity Beacon, a material

recovery facility in New York, and converts it to No.2 home heating oil, syngas and a char

byproduct using thermal pyrolysis. In their process, a feed stream of 8-10 TPD of NRP of all

grades plastics (primarily PP and PE) excluding PVC is pyrolyzed in an oxygen free

environment (PVC is not used as a feedstock because it releases chlorine gases that can

potentially corrode the equipment). The plastic material is converted to 75% oil, 20% gas and

5% char, approximately and the company has a production rate of 4.8 B.O. per ton of NRP. Also,

GRE produces emissions such as NOx, SO2, VOC, CO, CO2 and particulate matter that are all

within the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) limits.6

GRE’s process is a closed loop system. The non-condensable gases produced from the pyrolysis

reaction are looped back to the process to offset energy requirements. Natural gas is used for the

reactor furnaces only during equipment start-up.6

Group H 05/09/18

6

The goal of this project is to design and simulate in Aspen a NRP to fuel plant based on GRE’s

RFP unit. GRE’s design will be optimized to improve the NRP carbon conversion, plastic to oil

selectivity and the overall process energy efficiency.

III. Process Description

Plastic waste will be pretreated by removing unwanted materials such as, metals, paper, glass

and PVC. Metal and glass will be removed using selective vacuuming (based on feedstock

density) and the rest of the contaminants will be sorted out manually. Plastics that have an

amount of moisture greater than 10% will be dried using a hot air drier. Then, 10 TPD of the

pretreated plastic material will be mechanically shredded twice to 0.75-1” flakes and sent from a

hopper to an extruder where the plastics melt at 900 oF. The extruder eases the flow of the

plastics to a rotary screw pyrolysis reactor. This reactor operates between 700 and 1212oF.

Plastic material that do not thermally degrade remains as char and is collected at the bottom of

the reactor.

The non-condensable gases in the pygas will be separated from the oil fractions by a series of 8

cyclones operating at temperatures between 350oF and 14oF and different residence times. The

first cyclone separates out the heaviest oil fractions while the last cyclone the lightest fractions.

The 8th cyclone will have an ethylene glycol cooling jacked and chiller to achieve the final

operating temperature.

The oil fractions collected from each cyclone will be mixed in a single stream to make No.2

home heating oil that can be sold and used directly into furnaces and generators. The energy

content of the non-condensable gases resulting from the process will be used to run the pyrolysis

process without the input of external energy during steady state operations. This process will

operate at atmospheric pressure.6

The major difference between this process and GRE’s process is that this design includes the

drying of plastics in the pretreatment to decrease the energy consumption associated with the

moisture content. Also, while GRE pyrolyzes the plastics in two screw reactors in series, this

design utilizes a single rotary screw pyrolysis reactor. This reactor provides a plastic to oil

conversion greater than 75%.

Figure 1 and 2 shows the overall process material and energy balances. Mass streams are

depicted as horizontal solid lines and energy streams as horizontal dashed lines. A feed

composition of 60% PP and 40% PE was assumed based on GRE’s average feedstock

distribution (refer to fig. A-1 in the appendix).6 To calculate the energy in and out of the

pyrolysis reactor, the high heating value (HHV) of the components were estimated using the

HHV provided by references 2 and 7. The energy out the char out was calculated using the HHV

reported by GRE. To close the energy balance out, the remaining energy was assumed to be

energy losses.

Group H 05/09/18

7

Fig.1. Overall NRP Pyrolysis Process Mass Balance

Fig.2. Overall NRP Pyrolysis Process Energy Balance

Figure 3 is a detailed process flow diagram (PFD) showing the major process units and

specifications, mass flow rates process operating conditions. The composition of each stream in a

weight percent basis is shown in Table A-2 of the appendix.

Group H 05/09/18

8

Fig. 3. NRP to fuel process flow diagram

Group H 05/09/18

9

IV. Major Equipment Specifications

Table 2 shows the major equipment specifications for the NRP to fuel process. A detailed

spreadsheet of each individual equipment and drawing is shown in Appendix B.

Table 2: Major Equipment Specifications

Equipment

ID

Equipment

Type

Manufacturer Equipment Specifications

H-1 Storage

Hopper

McCullough

Industries8

Capacity: 3 cubic yards

Weight Capacity: 4000 lbs.

Material of Construction: Heavy Steel

E-1 Extruder Toshiba

Machine9

Screw Diameter: 19.7 in

Effective L/D Ratio: 28

Max Screw Speed: 200 RPM

Motor Power Requirement: 110-315 kW

Heater Capacity: 63 kW

Extrusion Output Range: 420-1,100 kg/h

Hopper Capacity: 400 L

Material of Construction: 316 Stainless Steel

Operating Temperature: 900 oF

Operating Pressure: 14.7 psi

E-1

Rotary Screw

Reactor

Henan Doing

Mechanical

Equipment10

Capacity: 10 TPD

Total Power: 19 kW

Rotate Speed: 0.4 RPM

Oil Yield: 4.5-5.5ton/10 ton of Plastic

Material of Construction: Boiler Steel Plates

Operating Temperature: 1094-1212oF

Operating Pressure: 14.7 psi

Carbon conversion: 94%

Conversion rate: 4.5 B.O./day

EC-1 Ethylene

Glycol Chiller

Advantage11 Type: Air Cooled Modular Indoor Chiller

Compressor Power: 3 HP

Cooling Capacity: 5.068 kW/hr @ 25 oF Glycol temperature

Percentage of glycol to water: 25/75

Refrigerant Type: R-410 A

Reservoir Capacity: 7.5 gallon

Material of Construction: Stainless Steel

Process Pump: centrifugal; 0.75 HP; 7.2 GPM; 30 psig

CJ-1 Ethylene

Glycol Cooling

Jacket

Santa Rosa

Stainless

Steel12

Pressure: 0-50 psi

Glycol Flow rate:0-40 GPM

Capacity: 53-811 gal/ft

Material of Construction: 304 Dimpled Stainless Steel

Pressure Drop: 0.60 psi/ft. of diameter

Operating Pressure: 14.7 psig

Operating Temperature:14 oF

Group H 05/09/18

10

C-1 to 8

Gas/Liquid

Cyclone

Separator

Eaton13 Gas/Oil Separation Efficiency: 99%

Material of Construction: Fabricated Carbon Steel

Max. Pressure: 600 psig

Max. Temperature:1000oF

Operating Pressure: 14.7 psig

C-1: Pipe Size: 14 in; NPT Flange: 8 in

Operating Flow Rate: 767 lb/hr

Operating Temperature: 350oF

C-2 to 4: Pipe Size: 10 in; NPT Flange: 5 in

Operating Flow Rates: 509-653 lb/hr

Operating Temperatures: 310-230oF

C-5 to 7: Pipe Size: 5 in; NPT Flange: 4 in

Operating Flow Rates: 509-653 lb/hr

Operating Temperatures: 190-110oF

C-8: Pipe Size: 8 in; NPT Flange: 5 in

Operating Flow Rate: 35 lb/hr

Operating Temperature: 14 oF

P-1 Rotary Pump Gorman-Rupp

Pumps14

Max. Capacity: 38 GPM

Max. Viscosity: 53925 cST

Max. Pressure: 200 psig

Min. Temperature: -50 F

Max. Temperature: 300 F

Material of Construction: Cast Iron

Operating Flow rate: 1.23 gallons/min *See Appendix-B for more details.

V. Aspen Simulation

A. Simulation Overview

The NRP to fuel process was modeled using ASPEN Plus as shown in figure 4. In this

simulation, the equation of state PR-BM was used to estimate the physical properties of the

conventional components. HCOALGEN and DCOALIGT were used to calculate the enthalpy

and density of the NRP (non-conventional component) based on its proximate and ultimate

analysis. The ultimate and proximate analysis of the plastic feedstock used in this simulation are

shown in Table 3 and 4, respectively.6 The ultimate and proximate analyses provide the

composition of the plastic feedstock such as elemental composition, the amount of moisture,

fixed carbon, volatiles and ash.

Group H 05/09/18

11

Fig. 4. Aspen simulation of NRP to fuel pyrolysis process

Table 3: Proximate analysis (wt%) of NRP feedstock6 Component wt%

Ash 0.44

Volatiles 99.54

Moisture 0.05

Fixed Carbon 0.03

Table 4: Ultimate analysis (wt%) of NRP feedstock6 Element wt%

C 84.0

H 13.1

O 2.90

Group H 05/09/18

12

The simulation is divided into 5 stages. In the drying zone, a feedstock 10 TPD of NRP is fed

into an RStoic block. The RStoic block is used to simulate the reduction of moisture in the

plastic feedstock. The Flash2 block separates the dried NRP from the water vapor. In this

section, a FORTRAN subroutine and a calculator block were used to calculate the water content

remaining in the NRP (see appendix A).

In the decomposition zone, the dried NRP enters a RYield block that decomposes the NRP into

conventional components (i.e., C, H, and O). In this section, a FORTRAN subroutine is also used

to carry out the mass balance calculations for the decomposition of NRP (see appendix A).

In the reaction zone, the feed enters an RPlug block followed by an RGibbs block, which models

the pyrolysis reactor. The RPlug is based on the reaction kinetics from a similar pyrolysis

process as shown in Table A-1 (see appendix). These assume that only C and H2 participate in

the reactions and that the reactions follow power law kinetics with a first order dependence on

H2. The RGibbs block produces other products such as CO and CO2 that are normally present in

the pygas by minimizing the Gibbs free energy. Also, in this section a SSplit is used to separate

the gas products from the char byproduct.

In the condensation zone, the gas product is cooled down using a cooler and it enters a series of

FLASH2 (1-8) blocks that model the gas/oil cyclonic separation. The Flash2 blocks operate at

temperatures ranging from 350F to 14F. The non-condensable gases exiting the condensation

zone enter the heat recovery zone where the they are burned, and the energy is recycled back to

the process.

B. Simulation Results

Sensitivity analysis was done on the RPlug reactor to find the operating conditions that best

approximated GRE’s average product distribution (i.e., 20% gas, 75% oil and 5% char), carbon

conversion and energy efficiency (i.e., 95% and 80%, respectively). The temperature of the

Rplug reactor was varied from 700F to 1200F. Figure 5 shows the product distribution (in a

dry basis) in wt% at temperatures between 700 oF and 1200 oF and at atmospheric pressure. It

shows that at 1000 oF, the product distribution is the closest to GRE’s product distribution. At

this temperature, the pygas product distribution is 22.5% gas, 71.3% oil and 6.2% char.

Group H 05/09/18

13

Fig. 5. Product distribution out of the reaction zone as a function of temperature

To assess the performance of this process, energy efficiency has been defined as the ratio

between the energy of the liquid oil and non-condensable gases out of the reaction zone to the

total energy in (see equation 1). In addition, carbon conversion has been defined as the ratio of

the amount of carbon in the NRP in minus the amount of carbon in the char byproduct to the

amount of carbon in the NRP in (see equation 2). At 1000 oF, the carbon conversion is 93% and

the energy efficiency is 84% (see figures 6 and 7). Tables 5, 6 and 7 show the calculations for the

carbon conversion and energy efficiency at 1000 oF. Detailed calculations for the carbon

conversion and energy efficiency at the rest of the temperatures are shown in Appendix C.

𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 =𝐸𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑝𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑖𝑙+𝐸𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑝𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝐺𝑎𝑠 𝑂𝑢𝑡 [

𝑀𝑀𝐵𝑇𝑈

ℎ𝑟)

𝐸𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑝𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑁𝑅𝑃 𝑖𝑛 (𝑀𝑀𝐵𝑇𝑈

ℎ𝑟)

𝑥100 Eq. 1

𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑏𝑜𝑛 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 =𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑏𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑃𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐−𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑏𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑟 (

𝑙𝑏

ℎ𝑟)

𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑏𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑃𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐 (𝑙𝑏

ℎ𝑟)

𝑥100 Eq.2

Group H 05/09/18

14

Fig. 6. Process carbon conversion as a function of temperature

Fig. 7. Pyrolysis energy efficiency as a function of temperature

Group H 05/09/18

15

Table 5: Carbon Conversion at 1000 oF

Table 6: Enthalpy of Non-Condensable Gas at 1000 oF

Compound Flow Rate (lb/hr) HHV (BTU/LB) Enthalpy (BTU/lb)

H2 10.3 23811.0 245172.1

CO 10.8 5431.2 58429.9

CO2 25.6 0.0 0.0

CH4 62.3 17119.1 1066593.6

C2H6 12.6 18150.0 229029.8

C2H4 54.0 21884.0 1182148.3

Total Flow Rate =175.6 Average HHV (BTU/hr) =2781373.6

Average HHV (BTU/lb) =15842.9

Table 7: Enthalpy of Oil at 1000 oF

Compound Flow Rate (lb/hr) HHV (BTU/lb) Enthalpy (BTU/lb)

C10H8 43.0 16707.0 718241.8

C4H10 5.7 57635.8 329827.8

C9H18 41.5 20469.5 849911.4

C6H6 35.8 17460.0 625067.3

C7H8 108.2 18228.7 1971946.4

C8H10 76.4 18651.0 1424464.0

C14H28 151.8 18826.0 2858620.8

C16H34 69.3 18843.0 1305904.1

C22H46 24.4 18992.0 463791.1



Table 8: Energy Efficiency at 1000 oF

Energy Plastic In

(MMBTU/hr)

Energy Gas out

(MMBTU/hr)

Energy Oil Out

(MMBTU/hr)

Efficiency

(%)

15.8 2.8 10.5 84.4

Temperature

(K)

Carbon in NRP

(lb/hr)

Carbon in Char

(lb/hr)

Carbon Conversion (%)

1000 651 48.7 92.51920123

Group H 05/09/18

16

The difference between the results from the simulation and the results reported by GRE could be

attributed to the kinetics used to model the RPlug reactor resulting in a different gas and oil

carbon distribution. Since GRE only reports the oil carbon distribution per carbon number,

hydrocarbons with the same carbon number were assumed the to be the products from the

pyrolysis reactions. Figures 8 and 9 show the respective oil and gas mol% composition of C6-C22

at 1000F exiting the reaction zone. Figures 10 and 11 show the oil and gas product distributions

reported by GRE.6

At 1000 oF compositions the HHVs of the oil and gas were calculated to be 18966 and 15843

BTU/lb, respectively (see appendix C). The HHV of the oil produced is similar to the average

HHV of diesel (i.e., 19604 BTU/lb). Table 9 compares the results from the sensitivity analysis to

Fig.8. Oil composition out of the reaction zone in wt.% (in a

dry basis) at 1000 oF and atmospheric pressure for an oil

molar flow rate of 4.23 lbmol/hr.

Fig .9. Gas composition out of the reaction zone in

wt.% (in a dry basis) at 1000 oF and atmospheric

pressure for a gas molar flow rate of 12.30 lbmol/hr.

Fig.10. Oil composition of GRE’s final product

Fig.11. Gas composition of GRE’s final product

Group H 05/09/18

17

the values reported by GRE.6 It shows that the results from the sensitivity analysis at 1000 oF

fairly approximate the results reported by GRE. These results can be optimized by better

adapting the kinetics shown in Table A-1

Table 9: Comparison of Aspen Simulation Results at 1000 oF vs GRE’s Reported Values6

Also, at 1000 oF the process results in the production of 2.11 TPD of non-condensable gases that

can be used to run the process without the input of external energy. The results from Aspen

simulation showed that the pyrolysis process requires 14.4 MMBTU/day of energy input. If the

heat transfer from the combustion of the non-condensable gases to the reactor is 100% efficient,

only 0.45 TPD of non-condensable gases are required to run the pyrolysis process. Thus, the

process results in the production of excess syngas. GRE also reports a production of excess non-

condensable gases from their RFP unit. One possible use of the excess gas is to store it to be

used during equipment start-up.

Table 10 shows the results from the condensation zone. It shows the hydrocarbon distribution

exiting cyclones 1-8. It shoes that most of the heaviest hydrocarbons exit trough cyclones 1-4,

while the lightest trough cyclones 5-8.

Table 10: Hydrocarbon distribution for cyclones 1-8 in wt. %

Aspen Simulation GRE

% Carbon Conversion 92.5 95

Oil % 71.3 75

Gas% 22.5 20

Char% 6.2 5

% Energy Efficiency 84.4 80

Production Rate

HHV Oil

HHV Gas

4.2 B.O./ton NRP

18966 BTU/lb

15843 BTU/lb

4.8 B.O./ ton NRP

15,973 BTU/lb

1000 BTU/lb

C4-C22

(wt.%)

Cyclone 1 Cyclone 2 Cyclone 3

Cyclone 4 Cyclone 5 Cyclone 6 Cyclone 7 Cyclone 8

C4 --- --- --- 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.083 0.11

C6 0.20 0.40 0.79 1.80 6.08 10.89 7.74 16.76

C7 0.50 0.92 1.64 3.29 8.73 21.33 38.61 63.76

C8 0.69 1.35 2.58 5.55 15.63 31.29 32.10 16.54

C9 0.48 0.94 1.81 3.83 9.04 14.88 16.93 2.51

C10 1.22 2.59 5.16 11.17 25.65 18.13 4.41 0.41

C14 23.58 46.82 62.11 64.19 33.27 3.40 0.13 ---

C16 27.63 39.54 25.61 10.14 1.56 0.04 --- ---

C22 45.49 7.44 0.27 --- --- --- --- ---

Group H 05/09/18

18

VI. NRP to Oil Economic Analysis

An economic analysis on the NRP to fuel process was done by obtaining the equipment

specifications through the aspen design and matching it up to equipment specifications provided

by manufacturers and resellers. The main plant design consists of a hopper, an extruder, a

horizontal screw reactor, a glycol chiller, a cooling jacket, eight cyclones, and a rotary pump.

Costs for the reactor, hopper, cyclones, and glycol chiller were obtained from the manufacturer

and reseller. The NRP was assumed to be delivered to the plant at $30/ton of NRP. The values

were calculated assuming that the process runs continuously for a month with one day of

downtime for maintenance. Table 11 shows the overall economics of the plant, including fixed

capital cost, operations and maintenance costs, profit and revenue of the plant, the return on

investment (ROI) and the payback period of the plant. Further details on the economics can be

found in Appendix

C.

Table 11: Economic Analysis of a NRP to Fuel Process

Value

Fixed Capital Cost5,15,16,17

Horizontal Screw Reactor $62,800.00

Hopper $1,070.30

Cooling Jacket $9,975.00

Extruder

Air-Cooled Glycol Chiller

$86,553.00

$7,935.00

8 Cyclones

Rotary Pump

$42,941.00

$1,900.00

Working Capital $683,010.59

Total Fixed Capital Cost $1,549,948.00

Operations and Maintenance (yearly)18,19

Rent

Labor

Water Consumption

Waste-Water Disposal

Electricity Cost

Maintenance

Insurance

$133,000.00

$600,000.00

$32.40

$51.52

$100,087.99

$557,981.28

$22,329.59

Total O&M $1,413,482.77/year

Revenue20

Approximate B.O./TPD NRP

4.2

Delivered NRP $30/ton

Price No.2 Oil $3.2/gallon

Total NRP Revenue/year $109,500

Approximate No.2 Oil Revenue/year $2,032,128

Total Revenue/year $2,141,628

Plant Life Time 30 years

Tax Rate 33%

Inflation 3%

Net Profit/Year 1 968,145.23

ROI 26.55%

Payback Period 2.89 years

Group H 05/09/18

19

*See Appendix-C for more details.

Figure 12 shows a straight-line depreciation for the equipment used in this design. The salvage

value for each unit at the end of the plant operating time was determined by the resale value of

the materials of construction or 20% of initial sales price. The total income from reselling the

equipment after 30 years of plant operation is $41,387.40. This value was added onto the

cumulative cash flow diagram of the plant at year 30 (see fig. 13).

Fig. 12. Straight-line depreciation of equipment used in the plastics to oil plant.

Fig. 13 shows the accumulation of cash flow over the plant’s lifetime. It takes into consideration

a 3% annual inflation rate on the delivered NRP and No. 2 oil after the first year of operation.

Taking into account the final depreciated value after 30 years of operations, the total profit of the

plant is $33,489,495.20 at the end of its lifetime.

Fig. 13. Cumulative cash flow diagram for a 30-years (after start-up) of a NRP to fuel plant

Group H 05/09/18

20

VII. Potential Applications of Char

Char is a carbon rich solid that “consists of non-combustibles and unburned organic content”.6

The char byproduct resulting from this process can be either disposed of it as a waste or used as a

material. As a material, char can be used as a cheaper and cleaner alternative to burning charcoal.

Studies have shown that for char to have more uses, it needs to go through a carbonization

process.23 The carbonized char will then have the potential to be an adsorbent for containments

and as an inexpensive metal scrubber for gases. The carbonized char can also be converted to

activated char with steam or carbon dioxide which shows excellent removal capacity for organics

from aqueous solutions. Currently GRE is selling the char byproduct to distributors for cement

and concrete applications due to its high energy density, low surface area and porosity.

VIII. Conclusion

Aspen plus was used to simulate the production of No2. home heating oil from NRP based on

GRE’s RFP unit. The optimum operating conditions were found by doing sensitivity analysis on

the temperature. The results from the Aspen sensitivity analysis showed that at 1000 oF and

atmospheric pressure the pygas product distribution, composition, carbon conversion and energy

efficiency best match the values reported by GRE. Thus, the process would operate at 1000 oF

and atmospheric pressure. At these conditions, the simulation resulted in a product distribution of

22.5% gas, 71.3% oil and 6.2% char. This product distribution results in a carbon conversion of

93% and an energy efficiency of 84%. At this product distribution the oil produced has a HHV of

18966 BTU/lb which is similar to the HHV of diesel (i.e., 19604 BTU/lb). The non-condensable

gases have an HHV of 15843 BTU/lb. At this HHV, only 0.45 TPD of non-condensable gases

are required to run the pyrolysis process without the input of external energy. Thus, the process

results in the production of excess non-condensable gases.

The results from the economic analysis showed that a total profit of $33.5 million can be

obtained after 30 years of operation. The process has a payback period of 2.9 years and an ROI

of 26.5%.

This report showed that it is possible to simulate a process that converts NRP to oil. The results

from the Aspen model fairly represent the results from the pyrolysis of NRP to oil reported by

GRE. Also, the economic analysis on the process show that the process is economically feasible.

Group H 05/09/18

21

IX. References 1Sharuddin, S. D., Abnisa F., Daud W. M., Aroua M. K., “Energy recovery from pyrolysis of

plastic waste: Study on non-recycled plastics (NRP) data as the real measure of plastic waste”,

Energy Conversion Management. pp 925-934, 2017.

2 Tsiamis, D., Castaldi M.J., “Transforming the Non-recycled Plastics of New York City to

Synthetic Oil”. Earth Engineering Center, Columbia University, 2013.

3R. Miandad, M.A Barakat, Asad S. Aburiazaiza, M. Rehan, I.M.I. Ismail, A.S. Nizami, “Effect

of plastic waste types on pyrolysis liquid oil”, International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation.

pp. 239-252, 2017.

4Al-Salem, S.M., Antelava, A., Constantinou, A., Manos, G., Dutta, A., “A review on thermal

and catalytic pyrolysis of plastic solid waste (PSW)”, Journal of Environmental Management.

pp. 177-198, 2017.

52015 Plastics-to-fuel project developer’s guide, Ocean Recovery Alliance, 2015,

http://www.oceanrecov.org/assets/files/Valuing_Plastic/2015-PTF-Project-Developers-Guide.pdf

, last accessed March 1, 2018.

6Ciuta, S., Tsiamis, D., Castaldi M.J., “Gasification of Waste Materials: Technologies for

Generating Energy, Gas and Chemicals from MSW, Biomass, Non-recycled Plastics, Sludges

and Wet Solid Wastes”, Technology and Engineering, pp. 83-88, 2017.

7Tsiamis, D., Castaldi M.J., “Determining accurate heating values of non-recycled plastics”.

Earth Engineering Center, City College, 2016.

8 Standard Self-Dumping Hoppers, McCulloughind Online Catalog,

http://catalog.mcculloughind.com/viewitems/all-categories/standard-self-dumping-hoppers?, last

accessed March 8, 2018.

9Sheet Manufacturing Single Screw Extruder, Toshiba Machine, http://www.toshiba-

machine.co.jp/en/product/oshidashi/lineup/sheet/tanjiku.html#/, last accessed March 8, 2018.

10Pyrolysis Plant 10 Ton, Henan Doing Mechanical Equipment Co.,

http://www.wastetireoil.com/Pyrolysis_plant/Pyrolysis_Plant/plastic-to-oil-257.html#Technical,

last accessed March 8, 2018.

11 Advantage Making Water Work, Ethylene Glycol Chiller,

http://www.advantageengineering.com/breweryChiller/units/breweryChillerGlycol-bcd3a.php,

last accessed March 23, 2018.

http://www.oceanrecov.org/assets/files/Valuing_Plastic/2015-PTF-Project-Developers-Guide.pdf

http://catalog.mcculloughind.com/viewitems/all-categories/standard-self-dumping-hoppers

http://www.toshiba-machine.co.jp/en/product/oshidashi/lineup/sheet/tanjiku.html#/

http://www.toshiba-machine.co.jp/en/product/oshidashi/lineup/sheet/tanjiku.html#/

http://www.wastetireoil.com/Pyrolysis_plant/Pyrolysis_Plant/plastic-to-oil-257.html#Technical

http://www.advantageengineering.com/breweryChiller/units/breweryChillerGlycol-bcd3a.php

Group H 05/09/18

22

12Stainless Steel Tank Cooling and Heating Jackets, http://srss.com/stainless-steel-tank-cooling-

heating-jackets/, last accessed March 8, 2018. 13DTL Dry Type Gas/Liquid Separators, Eaton,

http://www.eaton.com/Eaton/ProductsServices/Filtration/GasLiquidSeparators/TypeDTLDrySep

arators/index.htm#tabs-3, last accessed March 8, 2018.

14GR Gorman-Rupp Pumps, Pump Series: GMC Series,

https://www.grpumps.com/product/pump/GMC-Series-G-Series, last accessed, 2018.

15 Bridgewater, A.V., “Review of fast pyrolysis of biomass and product upgrading”, Biomass and

Bioenergy. pp. 68-94, 2012.

16“Material Handling/Process Equipment”, IMS Industrial Equipment. 2013,

https://www.imscompany.com/static/pdf/IMS44CatalogC.pdf, last accessed February 7, 2018.

17Peters, M. S., Timmerhaus, Klaus D. West, Ronald E., “Equipment Costs for Plant Design and

Economics for Chemical Engineers - 5th Edition,” lwww.mhhe.com/engcs/chemical/peters/data/

, last accessed February 15, 2018.

18Water and Sewer Rate, The Official Website of the City of New York,

http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/2703/water-and-sewer-rate, last accessed April 17,

2018.

19Monthly Average Retail Price of Electricity Industrial, New York State Energy Research and

Development Authority, https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/Researchers-and-Policymakers/Energy-

Prices/Electricity/Monthly-Avg-Electricity-Industrial, last accessed April 17, 2018.

20Weekly U.S. Weekly No.2 Heating Oil Residential Price, Petroleum & Other Liquids, U.S.

Energy information Administration,

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=W_EPD2F_PRS_NUS_DPG&f

=W, last accessed April 17, 2018.

21Ismail, Y. Hamza; Abbas, A.; Azizi, F.; Zeaiter, J.; “Pyrolysis of waste tires: A modeling and

parameter estimation study using Aspen Plus”, Waste Management 60. pp. 482-493, 2017.

22“Getting Started Modeling Processes with Solids”, Aspen Tech,

http://profsite.um.ac.ir/~fanaei/_private/Solids%208_4.pdf, last a accessed February 16, 2018.

23 R Helleur, N Popovic, M Ikura, M Stanciulescu, D Liu, “Characterization and potential

applications of pyrolytic char from ablative pyrolysis of used tires”, Journal of Analytical and

Applied Pyrolysis, Volumes 58–59, 2001, Pages 813-824

http://srss.com/stainless-steel-tank-cooling-heating-jackets/

http://srss.com/stainless-steel-tank-cooling-heating-jackets/

http://www.eaton.com/Eaton/ProductsServices/Filtration/GasLiquidSeparators/TypeDTLDrySeparators/index.htm#tabs-3

http://www.eaton.com/Eaton/ProductsServices/Filtration/GasLiquidSeparators/TypeDTLDrySeparators/index.htm#tabs-3

https://www.grpumps.com/product/pump/GMC-Series-G-Series

https://www.imscompany.com/static/pdf/IMS44CatalogC.pdf

http://www.mhhe.com/engcs/chemical/peters/data/

http://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/service/2703/water-and-sewer-rate

https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/Researchers-and-Policymakers/Energy-Prices/Electricity/Monthly-Avg-Electricity-Industrial

https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/Researchers-and-Policymakers/Energy-Prices/Electricity/Monthly-Avg-Electricity-Industrial

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=W_EPD2F_PRS_NUS_DPG&f=W

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=W_EPD2F_PRS_NUS_DPG&f=W

http://profsite.um.ac.ir/~fanaei/_private/Solids%208_4.pdf

Group H 05/09/18

23

X. APPENDIX

A. Auxiliary Information

Fig. A-1. GRE’s average feedstock composition in a weight percent basis

Table A-1: Pyrolysis Reactions for RPlug modeling in Aspen Plus21

Reaction A (s-1) E (kJ/kmol) N(temperature

coefficient)

C + 2H2 CH4 4.877 23100 0

2C + 3H2 C2H6. 0.52 23010 0

2C + 2H2 C2H4 2.386 23010 0

4C + 5H2 C4H10 0.122 23010 0

12C + 6H2 + O2 2C6H6O 0.497 33890 0

6C + 3H2 C6H6

7C + 4H2 C7H8

8C + 5H2 C8H10

1.654

7.305

4.476

33890

33890

33890

0

0

0

9C + 9H2 C9H18

10C + 4H2 C10H8

10C + 7H2 C10H14

14C + 14H2 C14H28

16C + 17H2 C16H34

22C + 23H2 C22H46

0.017

0.979

1.058

118.294

46.822

12.08

1590

33890

33890

6300

6300

6300

0

0

0

-1.089

-1.089

-1.089

Group H 05/09/18

24

Table A-2: NRP to Fuel Process Stream Composition in a Weight Percent Basis by Stream

Number

Weight % 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Water 4.61 4.87 5.41 6.25 6.91 7.56 9.00 11.0 1.35 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.26 0.73 1.65 31.4 5.79

H2 1.34 1.42 1.58 1.83 2.02 2.22 2.69 3.42 5.04 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

CO 1.40 1.48 1.65 1.91 2.11 2.32 2.81 3.57 5.27 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

CO2 3.33 3.52 3.92 4.53 5.02 5.50 6.66 8.48 12.5 --- 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.02

CH4 8.12 8.58 9.55 11.0 12.2 13.4 16.2 20.7 30.5 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

C2H6 1.65 1.74 1.93 2.24 2.48 2.71 3.29 4.18 6.15 --- --- --- 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01

C2H4 7.04 7.44 8.27 9.57 10.6 11.6 14.1 17.9 26.4 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.03

C4H10 0.75 0.79 0.88 1.01 1.12 1.23 1.48 1.86 2.70 --- 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.07 0.04

C6H6 4.67 4.92 5.43 6.16 6.62 6.68 5.81 5.32 2.39 0.20 0.40 0.79 1.80 6.06 10.8 7.61 11.5 5.49

C7H8 14.1 14.9 16.4 18.8 20.4 21.6 21.7 17.2 4.65 0.50 0.92 1.64 3.28 8.70 21.2 37.9 43.6 17.5

C8H10 9.96 10.5 11.5 12.9 13.7 13.5 9.82 3.88 0.34 0.69 1.35 2.58 5.54 15.6 31.0 31.5 11.3 13.4

C9H18 5.41 5.69 6.23 6.92 7.25 7.08 5.46 2.40 2.72 0.48 0.94 1.81 3.83 9.02 14.8 16.6 1.72 6.39

C10H8 5.60 5.85 6.22 6.39 5.87 3.96 1.00 0.10 0.01 1.22 2.59 5.16 11.2 25.6 18.0 4.33 0.28 7.63

C14H28 19.8 19.6 16.5 9.36 3.49 0.61 0.03 --- --- 23.6 46.8 62.1 64.1 33.2 3.37 0.12 --- 27.0

C16H34 9.03 7.99 4.44 1.11 0.14 0.01 --- --- --- 27.6 39.5 25.6 10.1 1.56 0.04 --- --- 12.3

C22H46 3.18 0.79 0.04 --- --- --- --- --- --- 45.7 7.44 0.27 --- --- --- --- --- 4.34

Group H 05/09/18

25

Aspen Fortran Codes22

• Aspen Simulation Calculator Fortran Code (Drying Zone):

H2ODRY=5

CONV=(H2OIN-H2ODRY)/(100-H2ODRY)

Note: Moisture of wet NRP is 7%

• Aspen Simulation Calculator Fortran Code (Decomposition Zone):

C FACT IS THE FACTOR TO CONVERT THE ULTIMATE ANALYSIS TO

C A WET BASIS.

FACT = (100 - WATER) / 100

H2O = WATER / 100

ASH = ULT(1) / 100 * FACT

CARB = ULT(2) / 100 * FACT

H2 = ULT(3) / 100 * FACT

N2 = ULT(4) / 100 * FACT

CL2 = ULT(5) / 100 * FACT

SULF = ULT(6) / 100 * FACT

O2 = ULT(7) / 100 * FACT

B. Equipment Specifications

Group H 05/09/18

26

Group H 05/09/18

27

Group H 05/09/18

28

Group H 05/09/18

29

C. Calculations

i. Carbon Conversion

Table C-1: Carbon Conversion

ii. Energy Efficiency

Table C-2: Average HHV of Plastic Feedstock

Plastic Wt.% HHV (BTU/lb) HHV (BTU/LB) *Wt.%

PP 60.0 18960 11,380.8

PE 40.0 18960 7,5979.2

Total=100% Average HHV =18960

Temperature

(K)

Carbon in NRP

(lb/hr)

Carbon in Char

(lb/hr)

Carbon Conversion (%)

700 651 139.81 78.52380952

750 651 129.54 80.10138249

800 651 117.02 82.02457757

850 651 102.3 84.28571429

900 651 85.65 86.84331797

950 651 67.65 89.60829493

1000 651 48.7 92.51920123

1050 651 23.31 96.41935484

1100 651 9.98 98.46697389

1150 651 0 100

1200 651 0 100

Group H 05/09/18

30

Table C-3: Enthalpy of Gas at 700 F

Compound Flow Rate (lb/hr) HHV (BTU/LB) Enthalpy

(BTU/lb)

H2 13.4 23811.0 319999.4

CO 0.1 5431.2 426.1

CO2 1.1 0.0 0.0

CH4 7.9 17119.1 135668.5

C2H6 37.0 18150.0 672266.7

C2H4 32.2 21884.0 705209.7



Table C-4: Enthalpy of Oil at 700 F

Compound Flow Rate (lb/hr) HHV (BTU/lb) Enthalpy

(BTU/lb)

C10H8 16.9 16707.0 282240.9

C4H10 3.4 57635.8 196758.5

C9H18 56.3 20469.5 1153316.3

C6H6 14.1 17460.0 245627.0

C7H8 42.5 18228.7 774897.9

C8H10 30.0 18651.0 559758.7

C14H28 221.0 18826.0 4159683.8

C16H34 100.8 18843.0 1900267.6

C22H46 35.5 18992.0 674879.2



Table C-5: Energy Efficiency at 700 F

Energy Plastic In

(MMBTU/hr)

Energy Gas out

(MMBTU/hr)

Energy Oil Out

(MMBTU/hr)

Efficiency

(%)

15.8 1.8 9.9 74.6

Group H 05/09/18

31



H2 12.8 23811.0 305837.3

CO 0.2 5431.2 1250.8

CO2 2.4 0.0 0.0

CH4 41.7 17119.1 713911.4

C2H6 8.5 18150.0 153721.8

C2H4 36.3 21884.0 793442.3

Total Flow

Rate

=101.9 Average HHV (BTU/hr) =1968163.6




C10H8 20.7 16707.0 345364.7

C4H10 3.8 57635.8 221376.1

C9H18 53.7 20469.5 1099925.4

C6H6 17.2 17460.0 300562.0

C7H8 52.0 18228.7 948205.5

C8H10 36.7 18651.0 684950.0

C14H28 208.7 18826.0 3929118.0

C16H34 95.3 18843.0 1794939.1

C22H46 33.6 18992.0 637471.6

Total Flow

Rate

=521.7 Average HHV (BTU/hr) =9961912.3



Energy Plastic In

(MMBTU/hr)

Energy Gas out

(MMBTU/hr)

Energy Oil Out

(MMBTU/hr)

Efficiency

(%)

15.8 2.0 10.0 75.5

Group H 05/09/18

32


Compound Flow Rate (lb/hr) HHV (BTU/LB) Enthalpy

(BTU/lb)

H2 12.2 23811.0 290467.8

CO 0.6 5431.2 3328.4

CO2 5.0 0.0 0.0

CH4 46.3 17119.1 792148.9

C2H6 9.4 18150.0 170459.1

C2H4 40.2 21884.0 879833.1

Total Flow

Rate

=113.7 Average HHV (BTU/LB) =2136237.3



Compound Flow Rate

(lb/hr)

HHV (BTU/lb) Enthalpy (BTU/lb)

C10H8 24.8 16707.0 413741.7

C4H10 4.3 57635.8 245479.7

C9H18 51.2 20469.5 1047524.6

C6H6 20.6 17460.0 360068.6

C7H8 62.3 18228.7 1135935.6

C8H10 44.0 18651.0 820559.5

C14H28 196.7 18826.0 3702300.5

C16H34 89.8 18843.0 1691322.4

C22H46 31.6 18992.0 600672.1


Average HHV (BTU/lb) 19074.7


Energy Plastic In

(MMBTU/hr)

Energy Gas out

(MMBTU/hr)

Energy Oil Out

(MMBTU/hr)

Efficiency

(%)

15.8 2.1 10.0 76.9

Group H 05/09/18

33



H2 11.6 23811.0 276282.6

CO 1.5 5431.2 7968.9

CO2 9.2 0.0 0.0

CH4 46.3 17119.1 792148.9

C2H6 9.4 18150.0 170459.1

C2H4 40.2 21884.0 879833.1

Total Flow Rate =118.1 Average HHV

(BTU/LB)

=2126692.6




C10H8 24.8 16707.0 413741.7

C4H10 4.3 57635.8 245479.7

C9H18 51.2 20469.5 1047524.6

C6H6 32.6 17460.0 568918.0

C7H8 62.3 18228.7 1135935.6

C8H10 44.0 18651.0 820559.5

C14H28 196.7 18826.0 3702300.5

C16H34 89.8 18843.0 1691322.4

C22H46 31.6 18992.0 600672.1




Energy Plastic In

(MMBTU/hr)

Energy Gas out

(MMBTU/hr)

Energy Oil Out

(MMBTU/hr)

Efficiency

(%)

15.8 2.1 10.2 78.2

Group H 05/09/18

34



H2 11.1 23811.0 264420.4

CO 3.1 5431.2 17108.1

CO2 14.6 0.0 0.0

CH4 54.8 17119.1 938820.6

C2H6 11.1 18150.0 201791.2

C2H4 47.6 21884.0 1041554.5

Total Flow Rate =142.4 Average HHV (BTU/LB) =2463694.9




C10H8 33.6 16707.0 562001.8

C4H10 5.0 57635.8 290601.2

C9H18 46.2 20469.5 945930.3

C6H6 28.0 17460.0 489095.6

C7H8 84.6 18228.7 1542986.5

C8H10 59.8 18651.0 1114598.5

C14H28 173.4 18826.0 3265074.1

C16H34 79.2 18843.0 1491584.2

C22H46 27.9 18992.0 529735.3




Energy Plastic In

(MMBTU/hr)

Energy Gas out

(MMBTU/hr)

Energy Oil Out

(MMBTU/hr)

Efficiency

(%)

15.8 2.5 10.2 80.4

Group H 05/09/18

35



H2 10.7 23811.0 254257.4

CO 6.1 5431.2 33125.0

CO2 20.5 0.0 0.0

CH4 54.8 17119.1 938820.6

C2H6 11.9 18150.0 216007.9

C2H4 50.9 21884.0 1114934.7

Total Flow Rate =155.0 Average HHV (BTU/LB) =2557145.6




C10H8 38.3 16707.0 639711.0

C4H10 5.4 57635.8 311074.7

C9H18 43.8 20469.5 897200.0

C6H6 31.9 17460.0 556733.1

C7H8 96.4 18228.7 1756366.6

C8H10 68.0 18651.0 1268736.9

C14H28 162.4 18826.0 3057705.7

C16H34 74.1 18843.0 1396851.9

C22H46 26.1 18992.0 496091.2




Energy Plastic In

(MMBTU/hr)

Energy Gas out

(MMBTU/hr)

Energy Oil Out

(MMBTU/hr)

Efficiency (%)

15.8 2.6 10.4 81.9

Group H 05/09/18

36



H2 10.3 23811.0 245172.1

CO 10.8 5431.2 58429.9

CO2 25.6 0.0 0.0

CH4 62.3 17119.1 1066593.6

C2H6 12.6 18150.0 229029.8

C2H4 54.0 21884.0 1182148.3





C10H8 43.0 16707.0 718241.8

C4H10 5.7 57635.8 329827.8

C9H18 41.5 20469.5 849911.4

C6H6 35.8 17460.0 625067.3

C7H8 108.2 18228.7 1971946.4

C8H10 76.4 18651.0 1424464.0

C14H28 151.8 18826.0 2858620.8

C16H34 69.3 18843.0 1305904.1

C22H46 24.4 18992.0 463791.1




Energy Plastic In

(MMBTU/hr)

Energy Gas out

(MMBTU/hr)

Energy Oil Out

(MMBTU/hr)

Efficiency

(%)

15.8 2.8 10.5 84.4

Group H 05/09/18

37



H2 9.9 23811.0 236120.3

CO 17.5 5431.2 94913.1

CO2 28.7 0.0 0.0

CH4 65.5 17119.1 1121824.7

C2H6 13.3 18150.0 240783.0

C2H4 56.8 21884.0 1242813.4





C10H8 47.7 16707.0 796554.7

C4H10 6.0 57635.8 346753.8

C9H18 39.3 20469.5 804287.4

C6H6 39.7 17460.0 693162.0

C7H8 120.0 18228.7 2186955.9

C8H10 84.7 18651.0 1579779.2

C14H28 141.8 18826.0 2668781.3

C16H34 64.7 18843.0 1219179.8

C22H46 22.8 18992.0 432991.0




Energy Plastic In

(MMBTU/hr)

Energy Gas out

(MMBTU/hr)

Energy Oil Out

(MMBTU/hr)

Efficiency

(%)

15.8 2.9 10.7 86.5

Group H 05/09/18

38



H2 9.5 23811.0 226822.6

CO 26.3 5431.2 143058.0

CO2 29.3 0.0 0.0

CH4 68.4 17119.1 1170809.2

C2H6 13.8 18150.0 251192.9

C2H4 59.2 21884.0 1296544.5





C10H8 51.8 16707.0 865255.5

C4H10 6.3 57635.8 361745.1

C9H18 37.1 20469.5 760372.0

C6H6 43.5 17460.0 760283.5

C7H8 131.6 18228.7 2398523.9

C8H10 92.9 18651.0 1732608.9

C14H28 132.2 18826.0 2488409.4

C16H34 60.3 18843.0 1136779.9

C22H46 21.3 18992.0 403726.8




Energy Plastic In

(MMBTU/hr)

Energy Gas out

(MMBTU/hr)

Energy Oil Out

(MMBTU/hr)

Efficiency (%)

15.8 3.1 10.9 88.6

Group H 05/09/18

39



H2 7.6 23,811.0 179,794.6

CO 16.2 5,431.2 87,923.9

CO2 26.8 0.0 0.0

CH4 70.9 17,119.1 1,213,799.0

C2H6 14.3 18,150.0 260,315.3

C2H4 61.4 21,884.0 1,343,629.5

Total Flow Rate =197.2 Average HHV (BTU/hr) =3,085,462.4

Average HHV (BTU/lb) =15,643.9



C10H8 56.8 16707.0 948820.6

C4H10 6.5 57635.8 374882.2

C9H18 35.1 20469.5 718470.0

C6H6 47.3 17460.0 825735.8

C7H8 142.9 18228.7 2605011.5

C8H10 100.9 18651.0 1881766.5

C14H28 123.2 18826.0 2318461.4

C16H34 56.2 18843.0 1059143.2

C22H46 19.8 18992.0 376154.0




Energy Plastic In

(MMBTU/hr)

Energy Gas out

(MMBTU/hr)

Energy Oil Out

(MMBTU/hr)

Efficiency

(%)

15.8 3.1 11.1 89.8

Group H 05/09/18

40



H2 3.04177 23,811.0 72,427.6

CO 0.0269252 5,431.2 146.2

CO2 0.1982781 0.0 0.0

CH4 73.0452 17,119.1 1,250,467.1

C2H6 14.77032 18,150.0 268,081.3

C2H4 63.22953 21,884.0 1,383,715.0

Total Flow Rate =154.3 Average HHV (BTU/hr) =2,974,837.3

Average HHV (BTU/lb) =19,278.1



C10H8 61.1 16707.0 1020797.7

C4H10 6.698372 57635.8 386066.4

C9H18 33.14179 20469.5 678395.0

C6H6 50.9 17460.0 888696.5

C7H8 153.8035 18228.7 2803640.8

C8H10 108.5867 18651.0 2025250.5

C14H28 114.6402 18826.0 2158216.4

C16H34 52.32386 18843.0 985938.5

C22H46 18.437 18992.0 350155.5




Energy Plastic In

(MMBTU/hr)

Energy Gas out

(MMBTU/hr)

Energy Oil Out

(MMBTU/hr)

Efficiency

(%)

15.8 3.0 11.3 90.3

Group H 05/09/18

41

iii. Detailed Economics Calculation

Table C-36: Capital Investment

Direct Cost Percent of Delivered Equipment Cost* Plant Cost

Purchased equipment delivered 100 $213,174.34

Purchased-equipment installation 47 $100,191.94

Instrumentation and controls 36 $76,742.76

Piping (Installed) 68 $144,958.55

Electrical Systems (Installed) 11 $23,449.18

Buildings 18 $38,371.43

Yard Improvement 10 $21,317.38

Service Facilities (Installed) 70 $149,222.04

Total Direct Cost 360 $767,427.62

Indirect Costs

Engineering and Supervision 33 $70,347.53

Construction Expenses 41 $87,401.48

Legal Expenses 4 $8,526.97

Total Indirect Cost 144 $933,703.61

Contractor’s Fee 22 $205,414.79

Contingency 44 $410,829.59

Fixed Capital Investment 504 $1,549,947.99

Working Capital 89 $683,010.59

Total Capital Investment 593 $2,232,958.58

*Ratio factors for estimating capital investment items based on delivered equipment cost

Table C-37: Operation and Maintenance

Cost 1 year 30 years

Rent $133,000.00/year $133,000.00 $3,990,000.00

Labor $60,000.00/person (6) $600,000.00 $18,000,000.00

Water Cost $3.81/100cuft $32.40 $971.80

Electricity Cost $0.067/kwh $100,087.99 $3,002,639.62

Waste Water Disposal $6.06/100cuft $51.52 $1,545.66

Maintenance 3% FCC/month $557,981.28 $16,739,438.31

Insurance 1% TCC/year $22,329.59 $669.887.57

Total $1,413,482.77 $42,404,482.95

*FCC-Fixed Capital Cost, TCC- Total Capital Cost

Date post:	01-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

Transforming Non-Recyclable Plastics to Fuel Oil Using...

Documents